Home secretary Jacqui Smith told MPs yesterday that while the government was still committed to passing new legislation to allow intercept evidence – including recordings from phone taps and email surveillance – in court, further "extensive work" was required on "a number of key issues". These include concerns that the work of the security services and police on complex terrorism cases could be undermined if they had to reveal their techniques and sources in the provision of such evidence. A final decision by the privy council is not expected till the summer at the earliest.

Britain is one of the few countries in the west that does not admit intercept evidence in court. Ken Macdonald, former director of public prosecutions, has long supported lifting the ban, arguing that it denies prosecutors the use of a type of evidence that has proved helpful in many other jurisdictions and that is warranted in a just trial.

Civil rights campaigners go further, arguing that the use of intercept evidence as a tool for prosecutors in terrorist cases would mitigate the need for more draconian measures, including lengthy pre-charge detention and the control orders regime.

The arguments for and against the use of intercept evidence in court have been debated at length – it's time for the privy council to make its mind up.